The Ashes Thread

[MK Shrimper]

Something from TMS that made me laugh...

"If England were a woman they'd be Kim Wilde - they did something brilliant in 1981 and keep harking back to it all the time."

 

[Stats]

Looks like we are stuffed in this one.

To say our batting has been awful is an understatment.

Bopara and Bell have been getting a few pelters in the media today but I doubt the management will change the batting order going into the final test. Bit too late to bring in the likes of Key or Trott.

 

[Shrimper]

I'm disgusted by this performance.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Looks like the wicketkeepers are up for debate today. If you'll pardon the pun, I'm a bit stumped!

For me, it's a two-horse race: Stewart or Knott. Instincts say Knott...

Matt

 

[number11]

Looks like the wicketkeepers are up for debate today. If you'll pardon the pun, I'm a bit stumped!

For me, it's a two-horse race: Stewart or Knott. Instincts say Knott...

Matt

By all accounts, Knott's reputation is up their with the best. As this side already has a slot for the conventional allrounder (Beefy), and the batsmen really should get the runs, then there would probably be less need to take into account Stewarts batting.

That said, whilst I would go for Knott, Stewart was a great player for England and probably undervalued until he finally hung up his gloves and bat. Great attacking batsman worthy of a place anywhere in the order on merit, I rarely saw him make any mistakes behind the stumps. That we were so poor during his era, despite him more than adequately filling the role of two players, was certainly through no fault of his.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

By all accounts, Knott's reputation is up their with the best. As this side already has a slot for the conventional allrounder (Beefy), and the batsmen really should get the runs, then there would probably be less need to take into account Stewarts batting.

That said, whilst I would go for Knott, Stewart was a great player for England and probably undervalued until he finally hung up his gloves and bat. Great attacking batsman worthy of a place anywhere in the order on merit, I rarely saw him make any mistakes behind the stumps. That we were so poor during his era, despite him more than adequately filling the role of two players, was certainly through no fault of his.

Exactly the dilemma I went through. Stewart is, I think I'm right in saying, England's most-capped player - so it's a pretty tough call to leave him out. His average is also almost 40 - very respectable for a wickie.

But everything I've heard about Knott - from his ability to stand up, which places considerable pressure on the opposition, to the obduracy of his batting (and a test average of almost 33) - means that he just squeezes in past Stewart for me.

 

[number11]

Exactly the dilemma I went through. Stewart is, I think I'm right in saying, England's most-capped player - so it's a pretty tough call to leave him out. His average is also almost 40 - very respectable for a wickie.

But everything I've heard about Knott - from his ability to stand up, which places considerable pressure on the opposition, to the obduracy of his batting (and a test average of almost 33) - means that he just squeezes in past Stewart for me.

Indeed, and Im guessing there is going to be a slot for a spinner (Laker or Underwood I assume?) and by all accounts Knott's keeping to Underwood was a joy to behold.

Stewart did indeed average just under 40. In an era of pace attacks of Curtley and Courtney, Donald and Pollock, McGrath and Gillespie, Waqar and Wasim, not to mention the spin of Warne, Murali, Kumble etc, that is a great effort. His contempories, Atherton, Nasser, Hick, Ramps etc all averaged less despite not having to contend with keeping wicket as well.

 

[canveyshrimper]

By all accounts, Knott's reputation is up their with the best. As this side already has a slot for the conventional allrounder (Beefy), and the batsmen really should get the runs, then there would probably be less need to take into account Stewarts batting.

That said, whilst I would go for Knott, Stewart was a great player for England and probably undervalued until he finally hung up his gloves and bat. Great attacking batsman worthy of a place anywhere in the order on merit, I rarely saw him make any mistakes behind the stumps. That we were so poor during his era, despite him more than adequately filling the role of two players, was certainly through no fault of his.

Three, if you consider his spell as captain post Atherton. To be fair to Stewart he made himself into a bloody good International keeper. However where possible the best keeper should be picked and Alan Knott was easily that. He was also a good and very brave batsman standing up to the likes of Lillee & Thomson, and the WIndies pace battery nof that time, which was more than Boycott did when he opted for his self imposed exile.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Trott comes into the team for Bopara, while Ian Bell will bat three at The Oval. :nope: Have to feel a bit sorry for Ravi and I am sure he'll come back a stronger player for it. I'm just amazed that Bell is retained, and Trott who will make his debut is picked ahead of Rob Key. Trott is a brave selection and I hope he comes in and batters the convict attack all over the Oval.

 

[Stats]

Bell at 3 thats as bad as Bopara at 3 in this series, neither is a number 3.

Think we should have a comp to guess how many runs Bell will make.

I'm going for 40.

 

[BrettieAngell]

Well Trott could be a hero, what a game to make your debut in!!

Feel sorry for Ravi but he will be back, would rather have kept him in the side than Bell I reckon he will score 25.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

:doh::doh::doh:

England selectors feel the number three is a bit inexperienced and batting out of position, so what is their response? Obviously it is to promote proven failure Ian Bell-end to three, a position he has woefully underperformed in, and introduce the even more inexperienced Trott into the middle order.

It beggars belief that Bell is back at three. It's bad enough that he's still in the side, let alone at three.

The only up-side is that we didn't recall Ramprakrash.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Bell at three? Well, there go the Ashes.

:(

 

[number11]

I was listening to Geoff Miller yesterday giving his reasons for the selection and was struggling to put aside the growing thought that the selctors are morons. He was saying Trott plays as they have a policy of consistent selection and he was in the squad for the 4th test so was the consistent choice and they wont be panicked etc. Consistency is only useful if its backing the right decisions rather than being consistent for consistencies sake. Time will tell on that one.

On the other hand he didnt address the consistency issues that sees Ravi dropped (probably rightly so generally) and Ian Bell promoted despite barely have any more success than Ravi in this series and certainly no more success than him in the past year of international cricket. Ravi started ahead of Bell this series, neither has done well, so why does Ravi get the axe? I guess as they felt he needed a rest and Trott (the selection for consistency) cant bat at 3 so they needed Bell to move up, not wanting to be 'inconsistent' by picking Key.

We now have a Warwickshire middle order at the vital 3 and 4 (maybe 5) positions. If it fails then serious questions have to be asked of Ashley Giles involvement.

Still, really hope they both leave me with egg on my face and they get centuries...

 

[BLUEBLOOD]

I think Fatty Key would be the ideal choice to bat at three, putting aside my obvious (and rather shallow) hatred of K*nt to one side and doing what is best for this match .. Key is generally in good form, with the added bonus of being an opener it won't be such a major problem if we lose an early wicket for him to go in .. we'll see Thursday and beyond i guess, but i fear our chances of snatching The Ashes back are receeding rapidly

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Back to the all-time England side, the pace bowlers are up for consideration.

Sydney Barnes does sound like a heck of a player... but then part of me always hesitates about cricket's early days, since I simply don't know if it was played with the consistent high standards as it was from the 1920s onwards.

That being so, I'm going with Trueman and Willis.

Matt

 

[number11]

Back to the all-time England side, the pace bowlers are up for consideration.

Sydney Barnes does sound like a heck of a player... but then part of me always hesitates about cricket's early days, since I simply don't know if it was played with the consistent high standards as it was from the 1920s onwards.

That being so, I'm going with Trueman and Willis.

Matt

Is it not 3 picks for this (I assumed the team was 2 openers, 3 middle order, 1 allrounder, 1 keeper, 3 quicks and one spinner?). Trueman and Willis seem the most likely candidates (though how bloody miserable would the dressing be having them two together!)

Im a bit surprised Gough is in there, as loved by me as he was, he did have a fair few off days and I thought Caddick was his equal when they were both at their best.

I was reading about Larwood this morning and how he was made a scapegoat in the PR between cricket boards after the body line despite only bowling by his captains instructions. An apology was drawn up for him to sign which he (rightly) refused to do so and so was dropped.

However for irking those convicts so much, if it is 3 spots, he can share new ball duties with Willis and Trueman.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

You're right - I'm simply unable to count! In that case, I'm going to go for Barnes. As for Larwood, he does appear to have been made a scapegoat, poor bloke.

 

[Jonny_Stokes]

More rank selection from England. Bell has done little to warrant either his recall, nor retaining his place. Should have got the chop along with Bopara.

Worst of all is Monty's inclusion in the squad - the guy is 8th in his own county's bowling figures. Central contracts have had their benefits, but this smacks of favouritism and an attempt to justify his contract. Blackwell, Rashid and Tredders have all been a country mile ahead of Monty this season. Awful selection.

 

[canveyshrimper]

You're right - I'm simply unable to count! In that case, I'm going to go for Barnes. As for Larwood, he does appear to have been made a scapegoat, poor bloke.

I've opted for Fred Trueman, easily the best English fast bowler I have seen. Frank Tyson for terrorising the convicts on their own tracks in 1954/55, by all accounts he was extremely fast. My third pick is John Snow, just edging Larwood. Apart from Headingley 1981, I never really thought Willis was that good, added to which he was a poor captain, and a drone on legs as a "commentator".